Talk:Black Irish (folklore)

Historic term

@CeltBrowne, do you have any reliable sources that directly say Black Irish is a historical term, i.e., that it is not actually being used today (even though it obviously is being used today)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

We have multiple sources showing it was used 19th and 20th centuries. Do we have any reliable, secondary sources of people self-identifying as "Black Irish" in the 21st century? CeltBrowne (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

If you want to call it "the historic term" in the article, then we need a source that WP:Directly supports that claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

If the term is still "obviously being used today", you should be able to provide reliable, secondary sources that WP:Directly supports that claim. We have sources directly supporting its use in the 19th and 20th centuries. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to have a source to say nothing in an article, but we do need a source to assert a claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

So are you denying that the term was used in the 19th and 20th centuries? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

No. I am WP:CHALLENGING the claim that a word "used in the 19th and 20th centuries" is actually a "historical term". I have not seen, e.g., any source that says the word isn't used (with this meaning) in the 21st century. Do you have such a source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I've seen several sources saying nobody in Ireland uses it to describe, e.g., the guy who wrote Conan, but they'd not count as reliable. And you can't prove a negative. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm saying that if the article is going to make a positive assertion that it's a historical term, then we need a source that supports that positive assertion.

(Also, mind the gap between "nobody in Ireland" and "nobody".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I think, possibly, the best solution is for you to just go and create a Black Irish (American term) article, where you can write about the Americans, Richard Nixon and Robert E. Howard, being called 'Black Irish', by other Americans. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the RFC above indicates that this is the article for that subject. @S Marshall, have I correctly interpreted the closing summary above? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe Bastun is being facetious and you've missed the meaning of what they wrote. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not being facetious, but hey, maybe someone could stick a picture of British beer into this talk page section, too? The closure by S Marshall says 'people first, myth second', but presumably that means Nixon and Howard and other Americans should be left out of this article in favour of Black Irish (American term), and we should include more about actual, real, Irish people who are Black in this article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The consensus at the RFC was to change the focus of this article to the people rather than the myth. And that's all I can say with my closer hat on. We as a community didn't decide anything else.

Taking my closer hat off, I did personally feel that, after we've changed the focus, this article will very arguably be mistitled. We didn't decide to fork the article; but we also didn't decide not to fork the article, and if forking it lets us get an encyclopaedia written with the least amount of hassle, then I can see a clear argument why we should.

But I also wonder if there's really enough to say about ethnically Caucasian people with dark hair who identify as Irish to justify two separate articles about them. Maybe there isn't.—S Marshall T/C 00:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I am opposed to splitting the article.

Bastun, I think now I understand what you're getting at, but I would say that because this article has the "(folklore)" suffix to it, this article is the one dissecting the "American term" aspect, while Black people in Ireland should feature the term "Black Irish" much more. So in the sense you're talking about, the "split" already exists. CeltBrowne (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is not the article about Black Irish (African). Information about Irish citizens of African descent (e.g., the thousands of people who self-identify as Black Irish in the census) really doesn't belong in this article, beyond the hatnote and perhaps a sentence or a ==See also== entry to Wikipedia:Build the web.

We might be able to rename this article to something like Black Irish (Americanism), but it'd probably be easier to pick a name after everyone has figured out that this article is the one about white people, and the other, bigger article is the one about Black people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Or - and think about this for a minute - maybe, just maybe - go write a Black Irish (Americanism) article or a Black Irish (American term) article from scratch, and leave this one to talk about the folkloric myth of the Spanish Armada, meaning we don't end up with a mis-named article. It's a fairly f'n obvious solution! S Marshall, for the record, unless I'm missing something, your closure does not distinguish whether the "rough consensus" you claim refers to the article being about Black people in Ireland, or the American people who think they have a distinct Irish ethnic origin distinct from other people of Irish descent and actual Irish people. But changing the article to no longer be about the folkore/myth, and instead to be about an American term, then renaming the article to reflect that change, just seems perverse! Should we clear with you in advance what the article that will be created about the myth should be called, to avoid future RfCs? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I said the consensus was to change the focus of this article. It can still include the folklore/myth. I understand the community's decision as meaning that we should deal with the Americanism first, and to give greater prominence to the Americanism than the myth. As for clearing stuff with me in advance... I've closed one RFC, but that doesn't make me Article Manager.—S Marshall T/C 16:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree:

• This article is about white people (mostly in the US), including the stories they told about themselves (particularly the Spanish Armada myth).
• This article is not about Black people. For example, this article is not about how many current residents of the Republic of Ireland self-identified as "Black Irish" in the most recent census. The article about those people is at Black people in Ireland, aka Black Irish (African).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

A fork would be the easy way out, but that would make it a POV fork, which is explicitly not allowed. The only correct solution is to improve this article. There are only two editors who are opposed to this. The reasoning has been copiously explained to them, but they are refusing to engage with it and are simply repeating the same lines over and over. If we made a fork, those two editors would be perfectly justified in nominating it for deletion, and we'd be back here again. Or else the two versions would exist and this article would continue to fail to meet Wikipedia's standards for quality and accuracy, and we cannot guarantee that those two editors would not sabotage the new article as well. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting that I am "sabotaging" articles (deliberately hurting or damaging the credibility of Wikipedia out of malice) will result in me referring those comments to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose it can be counted as a victory for common sense that the article about the folkloric term "Black Irish" can still include the folklore/myth! Dantai, you might want to drop the personal attacks, there? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)